The Journal of Social Sciences Research ISSN(e): 2411-9458, ISSN(p): 2413-6670 Vol. 4, Issue. 1, pp: 1-8, 2018 Academic Research Publishing URL: http://arpgweb.com/?ic=journal&journal=7&info=aims Group Original Research Open Access The Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement and U.S. Policy: Framing Consequences of Changing Policy James E. Stobaugh* Department of Behavioral Sciences, Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas Sean Huss Department of Behavioral Sciences, Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas Abstract Why did the Hawaiian sovereignty movement adjust its framing over the past century? In this article, we elucidate the processes that can help move social movement organizations engaging in a frame war to unify around a common frame. Using comparative historical case study, we examine the history of the Hawaii Sovereignty Movement as well as the U.S. governmental policies related to Hawaii and Native Hawaiians across the twentieth century. We highlight the importance of external actors in creating the conditions by which social movements must alter their framing strategy. Specifically, we look at the impacts of specific policies and legal threats on movement framing strategies. We find that when movement organizations face an existential challenge to their existence, they are willing to overlook their individual differences and unify behind a common framing. Policies meant to undermine a movement can work to strengthen a movement by unifying its disparate parts. These finding have implications for future studies of social movements and social movement framings as well as governmental policy studies. Keywords: Social movements; Hawaiian Sovereignty movement; Framing; Policy. CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 1. Introduction The Hawaiian sovereignty movement is composed of dozens of groups working for sovereignty for the Native Hawaiian people. Groups mobilize around various issues, ranging from environmental protection to cultural preservation to the political participation. They are part of an effort to achieve independence and sovereignty for the native people of Hawaii whose monarchy was overthrown by individuals supported by the federal government back in 1893. There is not one unified or monolithic sovereignty movement, instead, it is comprised of a diverse set of groups with sometimes competing agendas that have created various frames in order to differentiate themselves from each other, in a sometimes contentious manner. This paper is focused on how the various indigenous movements have framed their identities and how these identities have been altered in response to governmental policies. Scholarship on movement frames has focused on frame construction from within social movements (Benford and Snow, 2000; Gamson et al., 1992; McCarthy et al., 1996; Tarrow, 1992), but this study explores the external influences on social movement frame construction, specifically how governmental policies influence frame formation. While movement frames are conceptualized as creations from within, they can also be influenced and shaped from the outside (Beamish, 2003; Benford and Snow, 2000; Stobaugh, 2015). This paper looks at distinct policy periods that have affected the Hawaiian sovereignty movement and how the individual social movement organizations have responded to the external stimuli. We illustrate that in the case of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, governmental policies produced a frame war between movement groups that would seem to be likely allies. But just as governmental policies can divide movements, if the threat from the government policy is sufficiently threatening, it can lead these oppositional movements to band back together and end up create a unified frame. 2. Literature Review Snow and Benford define a collective action frame as “an interpretive schemata that simplifies and condenses the „world out there‟ by selectively punctuating and encoding objects, situations, events, experiences, and sequences of actions within one‟s present or past environment” (1992,137). Benford and Snow (2000) see framing as an “active, processual phenomenon that implies agency and contention at the level of reality construction” (612). Frames are not pulled from thin air but are often formed through a contentious process between various factions and their leaders. Frames are constructed to from two important parts, to diagnose problems and to propose solutions. Framing in the diagnostic stage illustrates that the present social condition is wrong, while the prognosis function is to offer a solution for the identified problem (Snow and Benford, 1992). Both parts of this frame construction are important because without proposing a specific solution to a specific problem, movements are at the mercy of ruling elites in offering a solution even if that solution is less than desirable. Hawaiian sovereignty groups diagnose the problem in similar ways; often around the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian nation and that the west has corrupted the Hawaiian *Corresponding Author 1 The Journal of Social Sciences Research culture. Hawaiian sovereignty movements frame the preferred remedies in ways that are often diametrically opposed to one another. But frame construction is not straight forward, frames are often the result of “media, local governments, and the state” engage in influencing the movement over the meanings of its frame (Benford and Snow, 2000). This is key because movement frames do not only come from within but are very much influenced from the outside. When demands are placed on the government they in turn become a prime player in shaping the movement frame through their response. They do this through challenging the demands of the movement as unreasonable, labeling the movement and its participants as criminals, or by offering mild appeasements that do not adequately address the demands of the movement. This last tactic leaves the public with the perception that the government acted in good faith towards the movement while incurring few costs. The sovereignty movement is comprised of dozens of organizations working under the banner of Hawaiian sovereignty. This is not unusual as other movements in the past have had competing and complementary groups working for the similar causes, such as the anti-nuclear and the civil rights movement (Benford, 1993; McAdam, 1982). Gamson that when groups are unable to agree on “what has been or is happening” there is a frame dispute (Gamson et al., 1992). These disputes often take on three forms: 1. disputes over the diagnosis of the problem; 2. disputes of the prognosis; 3. disputes on how reality should be presented though the frame (Benford, 1993). It is these disputes that threaten the progress a movement could achieve because these disputes require that precious movement resources be used debating what the true frame should be. This benefits the power structure because frame disputes draw the public‟s attention away from the culpability of the movement target, usually the government, and refocusing it on the competing interests within the movement. This reduces the pressure on the government to make concessions to the movement because public attention is no longer focused on them. As shown, framing is not a simple task; it can be a contentious process among movement leaders, oppositional leaders, the media, and the government all attempting to create meaning. Scholarship examining the Hawaiian sovereignty movement can be generalized into three main areas: 1) work on the early history of the sovereignty movement and outcomes of sovereignty (Dudley and Agard, 1990; Meller and Lee, 1997; Trask, 1999;2000; Weinberg, 1996b) work on one specific sovereignty group (Linnekin, 1983; McGregor, 2002; Weinberg, 1996a). It is important to note what is meant by “sovereignty” in the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement. Sovereignty means different things to various individuals and as such one standard definition of sovereignty would be inappropriate. Instead it is easier to break sovereignty down into three different “visions” of what sovereignty could entail for the Hawaiian people. Some envision sovereignty based on the nation-within-a-nation model like that of Native Americans (Trask, 1999), and yet for others it means complete independence of the islands sometimes with the total withdrawal of U.S. forces and interests and the establishment of a Native Hawaiian Nation (Weinberg, 1996b). Yet for others, sovereignty means reparations for the theft of the land and the overthrown of the Hawaiian government, similar to the claims for reparations made by the African American decedents of slaves (Dudley and Agard, 1990). It is important to remember that these groupings are not mutually exclusive. We will show how governmental policies influence the frames that movements construct but this influence does not always lead to a frame dispute. If it is the case that the government is attempting to change the status quo by reducing current protections and benefits then the movement will adopt a unity frame to stand against the encroachments. The literature on movement frames has shown the importance of frames for identifying problems and prescribing solutions. I have also illustrated that frames are not created in a vacuum but are a negotiated process often between the movement, its leaders, and the government. Next I present a brief history of Hawaii so that the reader has a chance to become acquainted with the grievances round which the movement is based. Native Hawaiians have a